4.5 Article

Formal robotic training diminishes the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: Implications for new programs in complex robotic surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 123, 期 2, 页码 375-380

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.26284

关键词

learning curve; robotic curriculum; robotic pancreatectomy; robotic training

资金

  1. NIH NIGMS [5U54GM104942-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formal robotic training helps in the safe and efficient adoption of RPD for new programs, reducing or eliminating the learning curve. Results from surgeons who implemented a new program after receiving formal RPD training were stable and similar to reported benchmarks.
Introduction The learning curve associated with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a hurdle for new programs to achieve optimal results. Since early analysis, robotic training has recently expanded, and the RPD approach has been refined. The purpose of this study is to examine RPD outcomes for surgeons who implemented a new program after receiving formal RPD training to determine if such training reduces the learning curve. Methods Outcomes for consecutive patients undergoing RPD at a single tertiary institution were compared to optimal RPD benchmarks from a previously reported learning curve analysis. Two surgical oncologists with formal RPD training performed all operations with one surgeon as bedside assistant and the other at the console. Results Forty consecutive RPD operations were evaluated. Mean operative time was 354 +/- 54 min, and blood loss was 300 ml. Length of stay was 7 days. Three patients (7.5%) underwent conversion to open. Pancreatic fistula affected five patients (12.5%). Operative time was stable over the study and lower than the reported benchmark. These RPD operative outcomes were similar to reported surgeon outcomes after the learning curve. Conclusion This study suggests formal robotic training facilitates safe and efficient adoption of RPD for new programs, reducing or eliminating the learning curve.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据